On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:33:28 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> In this case, I think so. There are plenty of other scenarios where they
> don't check if the batter is out, or don't check every method of
> dismissal, unless a player asks for a review, e.g. AFAIAA, they don't
> check for other methods of dismissal during an umpire review for a
> run-out. Just because, in this case, the change is from checking to not
> checking, does that make it wrong?

Don't you think there will be outcries if, a few overs after an umpire review for stumping, TV replays show a clear edge that was missed?

The frustration with DRS stems from allowing umpiring mistakes, that are easily detectable and fixable by DRS, to remain in the game. It does a great job, but we know it can do better.

On 15/01/2024 04:54, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:33:28 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> In this case, I think so. There are plenty of other scenarios where they
>> don't check if the batter is out, or don't check every method of
>> dismissal, unless a player asks for a review, e.g. AFAIAA, they don't
>> check for other methods of dismissal during an umpire review for a
>> run-out. Just because, in this case, the change is from checking to not
>> checking, does that make it wrong?
>
> Don't you think there will be outcries if, a few overs after an umpire review for stumping, TV replays show a clear edge that was missed?

No more so than after any other edge that was missed and wasn't reviewed
by the fielding side.

--
David North

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 4:21:49 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> On 15/01/2024 04:54, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:33:28 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> >> In this case, I think so. There are plenty of other scenarios where they
> >> don't check if the batter is out, or don't check every method of
> >> dismissal, unless a player asks for a review, e.g. AFAIAA, they don't
> >> check for other methods of dismissal during an umpire review for a
> >> run-out. Just because, in this case, the change is from checking to not
> >> checking, does that make it wrong?
> >
> > Don't you think there will be outcries if, a few overs after an umpire review for stumping, TV replays show a clear edge that was missed?
> No more so than after any other edge that was missed and wasn't reviewed
> by the fielding side.

Fair enough. I think I'll be a tad worse as people will ask "how did the 3rd umpire miss that edge when s/he reviewed it?".

On Monday 15 January 2024 at 11:20:06 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 4:21:49 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > On 15/01/2024 04:54, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:33:28 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > >> In this case, I think so. There are plenty of other scenarios where they
> > >> don't check if the batter is out, or don't check every method of
> > >> dismissal, unless a player asks for a review, e.g. AFAIAA, they don't
> > >> check for other methods of dismissal during an umpire review for a
> > >> run-out. Just because, in this case, the change is from checking to not
> > >> checking, does that make it wrong?
> > >
> > > Don't you think there will be outcries if, a few overs after an umpire review for stumping, TV replays show a clear edge that was missed?
> > No more so than after any other edge that was missed and wasn't reviewed
> > by the fielding side.
> Fair enough. I think I'll be a tad worse as people will ask "how did the 3rd umpire miss that edge when s/he reviewed it?".

Obviously the answer will be that they weren't shown that angle because they were only checking for a stumping. If the side-on replay used for the stumping review shows a clear edge, I'm guessing that they will still take it into account, even though they aren't specifically checking for it; I can't imagine that they will just ignore it.

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:37:40 PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 8:00:12 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > putting all the fieldsmen back on the rope, including the keeper etc.
> Um.. we have vastly different understandings of the Spirit if you think either of those is a problem.

Last ball, one dayer, Brealey captaining caused the introduction of the fielding circles

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:36:35 PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 8:00:12 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > As opposed to bodyline, putting all the fieldsmen back on the rope, including the keeper etc.
> I think everyone agrees that tactic, from almost 100 years ago, was against the Spirit.
> > And applying sandpaper to the ball is clearly cheating, as is keeping dirt in your pocket,
> At the time, it wasn't. Or at the very least, Ather's defence was way more credible than.. well.. there was no defence for sandpaper.

Might want to check the laws before you comment on them.
Applying dirt to the ball was not legal

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 4:29:24 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:36:35 PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 8:00:12 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > As opposed to bodyline, putting all the fieldsmen back on the rope, including the keeper etc.
> > I think everyone agrees that tactic, from almost 100 years ago, was against the Spirit.
> > > And applying sandpaper to the ball is clearly cheating, as is keeping dirt in your pocket,
> > At the time, it wasn't. Or at the very least, Ather's defence was way more credible than.. well.. there was no defence for sandpaper.
> Might want to check the laws before you comment on them.
> Applying dirt to the ball was not legal

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-dirt-in-the-pocket-affair-143193

"To this day, it is unclear quite what Atherton was playing at, or whether, indeed, he was contravening the rulebook, which was suitably ambiguous. Law 42.5 states: "No-one shall rub the ball on the ground, or use any artificial substance, or take any other action to alter the condition of the ball," and seeing as dust is neither artificial, nor in this particular case, on the ground, the only issue at stake was Part No. 3. And it was on that point that opinions differed wildly."

His defence was way more credible that Sandpapergate.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 4:28:23 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > Um.. we have vastly different understandings of the Spirit if you think either of those is a problem.
> Last ball, one dayer, Brealey captaining caused the introduction of the fielding circles

for entertainment reasons, not because it was against the Spirit.
There are no fielding circles in Tests, and this strategy is both lawful and within the Spirit.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 10:01:05 PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 4:29:24 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:36:35 PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 8:00:12 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > > As opposed to bodyline, putting all the fieldsmen back on the rope, including the keeper etc.
> > > I think everyone agrees that tactic, from almost 100 years ago, was against the Spirit.
> > > > And applying sandpaper to the ball is clearly cheating, as is keeping dirt in your pocket,
> > > At the time, it wasn't. Or at the very least, Ather's defence was way more credible than.. well.. there was no defence for sandpaper.
> > Might want to check the laws before you comment on them.
> > Applying dirt to the ball was not legal
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-dirt-in-the-pocket-affair-143193
>
> "To this day, it is unclear quite what Atherton was playing at, or whether, indeed, he was contravening the rulebook, which was suitably ambiguous. Law 42.5 states: "No-one shall rub the ball on the ground, or use any artificial substance, or take any other action to alter the condition of the ball," and seeing as dust is neither artificial, nor in this particular case, on the ground, the only issue at stake was Part No. 3. And it was on that point that opinions differed wildly."
>
> His defence was way more credible that Sandpapergate.

Funny he didn't trust that defense and argued that he wasn't applying dirt to the ball...

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:57:55 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > His defence was way more credible that Sandpapergate.
> Funny he didn't trust that defense and argued that he wasn't applying dirt to the ball...

You'll have to ask a human behavioural specialist as to why people panic in tense situations.

One player's reaction has no bearing on the meaning of Law 42.5 (at the time).

Comparing Ather's event (for which there is a strong argument that it was legal) to Sandpapergate (zero argument it was legal) is typical Aussie bullshit.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 9:02:14 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 4:28:23 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > Um.. we have vastly different understandings of the Spirit if you think either of those is a problem.
> > Last ball, one dayer, Brealey captaining caused the introduction of the fielding circles
> for entertainment reasons, not because it was against the Spirit.
> There are no fielding circles in Tests, and this strategy is both lawful and within the Spirit.

India is doing this as we speak, with Stokes on strike.
Everyone is on the boundary, except for keeper, bowler, and Rohit their lazy captain at first slip.

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 7:20:14 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> > There are no fielding circles in Tests, and this strategy is both lawful and within the Spirit.
> India is doing this as we speak, with Stokes on strike.
> Everyone is on the boundary, except for keeper, bowler, and Rohit their lazy captain at first slip.

West Indies are doing this as we speak, with Smith on strike.
Everyone is on the boundary, except for first slip (and keeper and bowler).